Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible.

Originally posted by Barcs
I understand it's frustrating when you make invalid claims and people post scientific evidence to prove you wrong,

And that's exactly what I
mean.. No one posts any scientific evidence. It's repeating the same dogmatic arguments over and over again. Simply misrepresenting the position to
prove you're somehow right. Bunch of fallacies everywhere. Show me where exactly someone posted scientific evidence against my arguments? Remember,
you said people posted scientific EVIDENCE, so don't show me some empty argument without evidence as a reply.

Originally posted by Barcs
but if you aren't providing evidence yourself to demonstrate your hypothesis, then you have no right to tell people they are wrong.

Yeah of
course.. All the links I provide are not evidence.. All the same garbage you people repeat every single time is considered evidence.. You people
change the meaning of the word evidence. Another equivocation fallacy. In one sentence there are already like 5 fallacies. It's noticeable that the
ones that call themselves critical thinkers are the biggest sheep and group thinkers..

Originally posted by Barcs
Unfortunately your version of "truth" has no evidence behind it, while evolution has a crapload. That's the bottom line no matter how you look at it
or what your personal beliefs are. If you have scientific facts, lets see them. Subjective evidence proves nothing.

edit on 12-12-2011 by
Barcs because: (no reason given)

Another bunch of repetitive arguments. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat something. It
does not make it more true.

Originally posted by Barcs
I understand it's frustrating when you make invalid claims and people post scientific evidence to prove you wrong,

And that's exactly what I
mean.. No one posts any scientific evidence. It's repeating the same dogmatic arguments over and over again. Simply misrepresenting the position to
prove you're somehow right. Bunch of fallacies everywhere. Show me where exactly someone posted scientific evidence against my arguments? Remember,
you said people posted scientific EVIDENCE, so don't show me some empty argument without evidence as a reply.

Your entire premise is based on a logical fallacy: argument from design and all the related fallacies that go with it. If you choose to ignore that,
that's your problem, not ours.

Let me ask you this. What evidence would you accept? I suspect none. The biggest problem with creationists is that they want to hold science to a
higher standard than they do themselves.

Originally posted by HappyBunny
Your entire premise is based on a logical fallacy: argument from design and all the related fallacies that go with it. If you choose to ignore that,
that's your problem, not ours.

Nonsense. The argument is NOT from design. The argument is from information and its types of information.
Typical strawman. And just saying there are a bunch of fallacies does not make it true. I name which fallacy it is, you don't, and every time you
did, I explained why it does not apply. Plus, the argument from design is in regards to there being a God. I never argued anything about there being a
God or not. These is purely about intelligence and information.

Originally posted by HappyBunny
Let me ask you this. What evidence would you accept? I suspect none.

Another problem of yours. Where is your reading comprehension? I already
stated this... If you can show me evidence, that prescriptive information can arise by naturalistic processes, then intelligent design becomes
invalid. You're assuming a bunch of stuff which I never said. Your "suspecting" is putting words in my mouth so you can pretend to be right.

Originally posted by HappyBunnyThe biggest problem with creationists is that they want to hold science to a higher standard than they do
themselves.

Another fallacy. You're calling me a creationist, which pretty much goes into the fallacy of appeal to ridicule and ad
hominem..

You people really need to learn some logic and philosophy.. Most atheists on here mostly use the following things:

Ad hominems ("creationists are stupid" etc.)
Straw mans (Having an argument about God, then suddenly throwing in 6000 years and bible in the argument etc)
Appeal to probability ("everything can be explained by natural causes so therefore that's how it happened")
Appeal to spite ("Theists say atheism is a religion, therefore they're wrong")
Appeal to authority ("science says so, so therefore it's true")
Argument from silence ("There is no evidence for God, so therefore there is no God")
Appeal to accomplishment ("Because of science we are where we are today, so therefore science is right in this case too")
Appeal to fear ("look how many wars religions caused!!")

And I can go on.. In general, these people who call themselves critical thinkers are using fallacies all over the place. But when a creationist does
it, he suddenly is stupid and incompetent etc. It's hypocrisy at its finest. And no I'm not a creationist. I don't classify myself in either group
because I don't think either side has all the necessary answers.

Originally posted by vasaga
Nonsense. The argument is NOT from design. The argument is from information and its types of information. Typical strawman. And just saying there are
a bunch of fallacies does not make it true. I name which fallacy it is, you don't, and every time you did, I explained why it does not apply.

Yeah, I have. I'm pretty sure I know more about this than you do, judging from the way you think and post your thoughts. You toss out words like
"logical fallacy", and "strawman" but you have no real understanding of what they are or how they relate to your argument. Not that you have a
cohesive argument to begin with.

Do you even know what an argument from design is? Or would you prefer argumentum ad ignorantiam?

Plus, the argument from design is in regards to there being a God. I never argued anything about there being a God or not.

Very well, then. What IS your position?

These is purely about intelligence and information.

Then why mention prescriptive information at all? That's something creationists bring up, but it doesn't really explain anything. It ignores function
and implies that the greater the order, the greater the complexity. Which isn't true, by the way. It's just the opposite.

The lack of evidence for a physicodynamic organization into fully functional systems doesn't mean such a thing doesn't exist. This is one of those
examples of the creationists trying to hold science to a higher standard than they hold for themselves.

Another problem of yours. Where is your reading comprehension? I already stated this... If you can show me evidence, that prescriptive
information can arise by naturalistic processes, then intelligent design becomes invalid. You're assuming a bunch of stuff which I never said. Your
"suspecting" is putting words in my mouth so you can pretend to be right.

See above. Only a creationist would use words like "prescriptive information" outside of information theory. That is a creationist/ID argument. And
since you know that we haven't come up with the answer yet, you assume that it must be designed. That's a God gap argument AND an argument from
design. Or, if you prefer, a negative proof, a post hoc argument AND an argument from ignorance.

I don't have to pretend I'm right. Science will bear out whether I'm right or not. At least I don't sit around claiming that I AM right by invoking
God or some designer. That claim is intellectually dishonest.

Another fallacy. You're calling me a creationist, which pretty much goes into the fallacy of appeal to ridicule and ad hominem..

Hooting with laughter. That's not an ad hominem at all.

You people really need to learn some logic and philosophy.. Most atheists on here mostly use the following things:

Do yourself a favor and get Wiki off your speed dial. You can't even see the logical holes in your own posts--in the logic, mathematics, and science
classes I took in university, you'd get a big fat F. Written in red ink, not some pretty color they use nowadays.

Ad hominems ("creationists are stupid" etc.)
Straw mans (Having an argument about God, then suddenly throwing in 6000 years and bible in the argument etc)
Appeal to probability ("everything can be explained by natural causes so therefore that's how it happened")
Appeal to spite ("Theists say atheism is a religion, therefore they're wrong")
Appeal to authority ("science says so, so therefore it's true")
Argument from silence ("There is no evidence for God, so therefore there is no God")
Appeal to accomplishment ("Because of science we are where we are today, so therefore science is right in this case too")
Appeal to fear ("look how many wars religions caused!!")

And I can go on.. In general, these people who call themselves critical thinkers are using fallacies all over the place. But when a creationist does
it, he suddenly is stupid and incompetent etc. It's hypocrisy at its finest. And no I'm not a creationist. I don't classify myself in either group
because I don't think either side has all the necessary answers.

You wouldn't know a logical fallacy if it bit you.

You bring up appeal to probability. That is your biggest failure of all. When properly applied, you come very, very close to proving that God doesn't
exist. If you knew what it was and the mathematical operations behind it, you'd have known that.

By the way, you've been strawmanning me consistently. I haven't called you on it, but really, you should take a look at your own posts before the pot
calls the kettle black.

And just to add to this, it's a teleological, a posteriori argument, but this is wrong. Complexity doesn't imply design. Living organisms obey the
laws of physics, just as inanimate objects do. That's the modern synthesis, and you don't seem to understand it very well.

Sorry, I went out for lunch and didn't get a chance to finish what I was saying.

I'm out of here. When bullsh1t is getting stars I know I'm dealing with a herd of sheep. And I know I can expect more bullsh1it comments like "yeah
now that you have nothing to say you run away" or whatever. That's how you people operate. Do anything that's necessary to pretend that you have
"won", whatever that means. I have a lot to say, but, there's no use. You guys are pretty much like a white gang who tries to beat up every black guy
that walks along and then try to justify it. Well, good luck with that. I have no patience for dogmatic people, even less when they are sure they are
right, even though science itself is not sure.. So.. Goodbye sheeple.

Edit: And oyeah, for the record:

Attacking a straw man is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with an imaginary similar yet different proposition.
Which is what you are constantly doing. Don't say I don't know my fallacies...

Originally posted by vasaga
I'm out of here. When bullsh1t is getting stars I know I'm dealing with a herd of sheep. And I know I can expect more bullsh1it comments like "yeah
now that you have nothing to say you run away" or whatever. That's how you people operate. Do anything that's necessary to pretend that you have
"won", whatever that means. I have a lot to say, but, there's no use. You guys are pretty much like a white gang who tries to beat up every black
guy that walks along and then try to justify it. Well, good luck with that. I have no patience for dogmatic people, even less when they are sure they
are right, even though science itself is not sure.. So.. Goodbye sheeple.

Edit: And oyeah, for the record:

Attacking a straw man is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with an imaginary similar yet different proposition.
Which is what you are constantly doing. Don't say I don't know my fallacies...

Originally posted by vasaga
I'm out of here. When bullsh1t is getting stars I know I'm dealing with a herd of sheep. And I know I can expect more bullsh1it comments like "yeah
now that you have nothing to say you run away" or whatever. That's how you people operate. Do anything that's necessary to pretend that you have
"won", whatever that means. I have a lot to say, but, there's no use. You guys are pretty much like a white gang who tries to beat up every black guy
that walks along and then try to justify it. Well, good luck with that. I have no patience for dogmatic people, even less when they are sure they are
right, even though science itself is not sure.. So.. Goodbye sheeple.

Edit: And oyeah, for the record:

Attacking a straw man is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with an imaginary similar yet different proposition.
Which is what you are constantly doing. Don't say I don't know my fallacies...

edit on 13-12-2011 by vasaga because: (no reason given)

Ad hominem. Lots of them. Apparently you don't know that one.

See ya!

It's obvious you don't understand fallacies. It's not an ad hominem, because I didn't say those things to try and undermine your
arguments. I didn't say "you are sheeple therefore you're wrong". They have nothing to do with the arguments, but only with my reasons for leaving
this whole discussion about intelligence being involved.

Another fallacy. You're calling me a creationist, which pretty much goes into the fallacy of appeal to ridicule and ad hominem..

Calling somebody a creationist isn't an insult or ridicule. If you are actually not a creationist and are arguing against evolution, I'm wondering
what your position actually is. How can you explain the diversity of life on earth without evolution?

As for the fallacies you posted, not a single one of those fallacies has been used justify evolution, and some of them are incorrect. Let's go
through your list and clear it up.

Ad hominem - using a personal insult to justify your point (ex creationists are stupid, evolution supporters are hypocrites, etc)

Strawman:

Person A has position X.
Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. Thus, Y is a resulting distorted version of
X and can be set up in several ways, including:
Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of
quoting out of context).[2]
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments — thus giving the appearance that
every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1]
Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the
speaker is critical.
Presenting an oversimplification of the opponent's position.
Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

Has somebody accused you of believing in god and saying it therefor makes your position invalid? From what I've read, they are asking for objective
evidence of your position, not creating a false belief and using it to prove you wrong. I see this fallacy all the time, when evolution supporters
are called atheists, when it has nothing to do with the argument. So you aren't a creationist then. What is your stance on how life originated on
earth? Just curious. If it's not creation or related to evolution or abiogenesis, I'm interested.

Appeal to probability:

An appeal to probability is a justification based on probability, sometimes regarded as a logical fallacy, when an unwarranted assumption that
something will happen, because it can happen, or when the odds of an occurrence are unrealistically played down in lieu of appropriate precaution.

"It doesn't matter if I get myself into debt. If I play the lottery enough, I will win the jackpot, and then I can pay off all my debts."

People aren't saying that evolution happened because it can happen, but if so at least it shows you think it CAN happen. That's a start. It has
nothing to do with probability, however.

Appeal to spite:

An appeal to spite (also called argumentum ad odium)[1] is a fallacy in which someone attempts to win favor for an argument by exploiting
existing feelings of bitterness, spite, or schadenfreude in the opposing party.[2] It is an attempt to sway the audience emotionally by associating a
hate-figure with opposition to the speaker's argument.

"Stop recycling! Aren't you tired of Hollywood celebrities preaching to everyone about saving the Earth?"

No evolution supporter is claiming that evolution is correct because creationists claim it's false. They are saying its correct because of the
objective evidence. "Theists say atheism is a religion, therefore they're wrong". The same thing goes for assuming they are correct.

Appeal to authority:

Most of what authority A has to say on subject matter S is correct.
A says P about S.
Therefore, P is correct.

Not even close to what you said it meant. That would be saying "Science is correct about evolution, therefor anything any scientist says is
automatically correct". That would be false. We need objective evidence in science.

Appeal to silence: I don't think people here are claiming that since there is no evidence for a creator that it means a creator absolutely does not
exist. It only means there's no evidence to suggest he does. What about evolution, that has tons of evidence behind it?

Appeal to accomplishment: People aren't saying that science is right because simply because its helpful. It's right because it's backed by objective
evidence, especially when looking at evolution.

Appeal to fear: Funny that you should bring this one up. Your example has nothing to do with it, though. Appeal to fear is attempting to sway
people to your position by exploiting fear. For example, "Why would you choose to ignore Christianity? If you are wrong you are going to hell. Why
take that chance?" Taking about religious wars has nothing to do with fear, it has to do with history.

Text Sadly I don't believe that this topic is truly being taken seriously. The vast majority of comments and responses,
from both sides, that I have read so far have taken tiny bits of information out of context and used them in some form of mediocre fashion. One of the
biggest attacks that I have seen so far is the completely false accusation that Mr. edsinger is trying to prove creation is correct. Secondly I
believe that Mr. edsinger stated clearly that there should only be one topic per post, and I have a theory as to why: any more than one is confusing
to even the most open minded of us. Also Mr. edsinger is not saying there are simply holes in the theory of evelution, he is saying that evolution is
scientifically and mathematically impossible.

Now to act upon a more disturbing problem. Someone in this forum posted that viruses adapt very quickly to environmental differences. While this is
true, and I am not saying that it isn't, the reason for this and the specifics of viruses makes the fact irrelevant. Viruses are basically DNA
wrapped in a protein coating. The only way a virus can reproduce is by forcibly injecting a host cell with its own DNA. Once it's done this, the new
DNA instructs the cell to create more of these protein coatings with the virus's DNA packed inside. The virus then bursts open and the process starts
all over again. Occasionally a virus will be created with a genetic defect or "adaptation" that may or may not help them survive better. In this way
viruses adapt but they do not evolve. If viruses evolved we would all be long dead and gone as viruses are more numerous than insects and a sudden and
rapid change in the coding of viruses would result in the downfall of all cells.

On to other matters. Yes, there are diseases like down syndrome in which a chromosome may be added, damaged, or lost, but these traits usually cannot
or will not be passed to the next generation as the holders of the defects are infertile or are simply to defective to survive long enough to
procreate. Whichever, the end result is the same: animals cannot change their chromosome count. And yes plants can... THROUGH ACTIVE GENETIC
ENGINEERING. Plus, plants aren't animals so no one cares.

If anything I have stated here is incorrect please correct me and give me a link that will lead me to the information disproving the above.

he is saying that evolution is scientifically and mathematically impossible.

Sure they can claim that, but that is obviously false. Evolution is an observed fact. To claim it is scientifically impossible or mathematically
impossible is therefore laughable.

In this way viruses adapt but they do not evolve. If viruses evolved we would all be long dead and gone as viruses are more numerous than
insects and a sudden and rapid change in the coding of viruses would result in the downfall of all cells.

1. The viruses change therefore they have evolved. Please get that straight.
2. There is nothing that requires viruses to be lethal. There is nothing that requires viruses to lead to the downfall of all cells.

Viruses evolve through different mechanisms than do reptiles or fish or fungi etc. They still evolve.

Animals do not try and alter their chromosome count. But there have been changes. Humans have 2 less chromosomes than other apes. It turns out that in
2004 the place was located in humans where the 2 chromosomes fused to reduce the number from apes to human counts.

Now to act upon a more disturbing problem. Someone in this forum posted that viruses adapt very quickly to environmental differences. While this is
true, and I am not saying that it isn't, the reason for this and the specifics of viruses makes the fact irrelevant. Viruses are basically DNA
wrapped in a protein coating. The only way a virus can reproduce is by forcibly injecting a host cell with its own DNA. Once it's done this, the new
DNA instructs the cell to create more of these protein coatings with the virus's DNA packed inside. The virus then bursts open and the process starts
all over again. Occasionally a virus will be created with a genetic defect or "adaptation" that may or may not help them survive better.In this
way viruses adapt but they do not evolve. If viruses evolved we would all be long dead and gone as viruses are more numerous than insects and a sudden
and rapid change in the coding of viruses would result in the downfall of all cells.

If anything I have stated here is incorrect please correct me and give me a link that will lead me to the information disproving the above.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.